The going rate
The market for top talent is more competitive than ever. This is an age when big law firms will pay the best *graduates* north of £50k and public company CEO pay shows double-digit growth every year. We may not like the fact that top pay has become disconnected from that of us mere mortals, but it's still a fact.

So when we recruit our MPs, we should be prepared to pay to compete for the best talent. After all, these people are discharging one of the most important responsibilities in a democracy: representing the people.

No one wants a parliament of the rich
I know several MPs who are literally paying to be MPs: their salary and expenses do not cover their costs and those of their family. Contrary the idea of troughing swine who get rich from politics, these people are getting poorer in order to do a job that is an essential component of a functioning democracy. Yes, they volunteer for the job, and there are far more candidates than jobs. But the same is true of doctors, soldiers, police officers and others whose work we also deem vital. We don’t like it when those people suffer real-terms cuts. Why should we allow it for our MPs? Because if we don’t address this soon, the only people who can become MPs will be those with private wealth, those with financial backing from organisations like trade unions, and careerists willing to take a hit while in Parliament in the hope of cashing in during their post-political career.

This is how the system works now
Because voters didn't trust MPs with their own pay and perks any more, decisions on pay and perks are now taken by Ipsa. And no, Ipsa doesn't answer to the people in the same way that MPs do, so its decisions on pay don't reflect public opinion in the same way that politicians' decisions do. But that's the way the people wanted it to be. You ordered this meal. Now you have to eat it.

Work, work, work
A lot of MPs work very hard. In the last 20 years, the job has been transformed. Once, Parliament really could be a part-time thing. Now, many members are working 70 hour weeks and function as super-charged councillors and caseworkers, dealing with dozens of constituent problems every day. The mailbag has grown and grown. And the days when MPs could largely ignore constituents or fob them off on local councillors are gone. In an internet era of customer service, we now demand personal assistance 24/7 from our MPs. We should be prepared to pay for it.

Danger money
The average MP doesn’t have a long career in Parliament. They have around eight years. If you’re not in a safe seat, you have a pretty good chance of being sacked at the next election, and the market for ex MPs isn’t great. One of the arguments advanced for professional footballers’ insane pay levels is that they have short careers potentially cut off by injury at any minute. Surely that argument applies equally well to MPs?

Recent years have also seen a dramatic change in the perception of MPs. Even those who entered the House in 2010 and had no part in the expenses scandal find themselves tainted by it, and by the general idea that all MPs are worthless tax leeches. Their pay should compensate them for the reputational cost of public service in Parliament.